The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Oh Rare what happened? Once you’d have been described as a national treasure of gaming design, developing smash hit after smash hit. Now you’ve been reduced to releasing mediocre exclusive software for the GBA and X-box that don’t even hit the charts.
You simply cannot ignore everything this generation has thrown up from Rare. Starfox Adventures, Grabbed by the Gholies, Conker: Live and Reloaded, Donkey Kong Country (GBA), Donkey Kong Country 2 (GBA), Banjo Pilot, Banjo Kazooie: Gruntilda’s revenge, Sabrewulf and (heaven forbid) It’s Mr. Pants. Some are down right awful, others are nothing more than okay and that even applies to the ports of the already established Rare classics. Nine games since RARE was sold to Microsoft. Once upon a time nine releases by RARE could generate enough revenue to cure world hunger. Those nine releases barely broke even.
I am a mega Nintendo fan. A sad obsessed loser who can’t see beyond the mushroom filled world of Nintendo. Yet it is the “other” Nintendo fans that do the crowing over how Microsoft bought a “dead weight”, not me. For I am still a little sad. There were 4 groups who lost out on the sale of RARE. Nintendo, Microsoft, Rare and us. Nintendo because they lost their link to the western world, they lost their link to the casual gamer and they lost their largest ally. Rare because they lost their mentor, they lost the guidance of Miyamoto and his crew and the creative freedom that came with being a Nintendo second party. Microsoft cause they spent $375 million on a company that hasn’t even generated $1 million. And us because we’re rapidly losing sight of what was once Britain’s premier game developer.
So what happened? The wholesale changes of staff? Perhaps, but then this is RARE and this has been going on for years. The team famous for developing the legendary Killer Instinct and Donkey Kong Country games from the SNES were not the same team that made Goldeneye, Blast Corps, Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini and Conker on the N64. RARE expanded, lost members, gained new ones and got bigger and bigger. And every game they released was (mostly) a new classic to add to their list (Killer Instinct Gold and Mickey’s Speedway USA aside). You see RARE demand a high standard of game development. If this game development didn’t reach their high standard then they would happily take the game away for a few years and change it (Conker’s Bad Fur Day is a prime example). And more specifically Nintendo were happy to let them do it. After all they pretty much did the same.
So you cannot blame the new staff. After all RARE’s high standards are still there. Granted the Microsoft sale shake up may have damaged a few things but nothing on the level of damage that has been done. You see RARE WARE were nothing without their big Japanese friend.
They suited each other perfectly. RARE were a niche on Nintendo’s console, their beat ‘em ups, first person shooters, third person shooters and clever little titles were something Nintendo never created themselves. Add the intensely high production values Nintendo always offered and massive development periods together and you got a company that were the top of their field. Their other games, the westernised platformers and cartoony racers were equally fantastic because their parent company were the masters of both genres. Of course Diddy Kong Racing ruled, it was published by the makers of Mario Kart!
RARE without Nintendo are nothing. The biggest 3 sellers of the last 3 years have been DKC, DKC 2 (both on GBA) and Starfox Adventures. They are also the only 3 RARE developed titles published by Nintendo. But equally Nintendo without RARE are also lacking.
Football fans may be able to understand it in relation to the Steven Gerrard saga. If Gerrard (RARE) went to Chelsea (Microsoft) he would just be another member of the dream team and would shine less than he would at Liverpool (Nintendo). At Liverpool he is the fan favourite and centre of the team. RARE were the best of the Nintendo second party bunch. Camelot, Hal and even Retro had nothing on the mighty English development studio. Nintendo without RARE is like Liverpool with Gerrard. Still a quality team but lacking their star man.
Nintendo and RARE were always a match made in heaven, one without the other just is not right. Look at Nintendo now! They’re relying on exclusive third party support from Capcom, Namco (especially), Square-Enix and their second party Retro. Some are great but none of them match RARE for their homely touches. Donkey Konga, F Zero GX, Crystal Chronicles and Starfox Assault are solid efforts at games; they just lack the soul RARE titles always used to posses.
I look at RARE this Christmas and I hope. I Hope Kameo: Elements of Power, Perfect Dark Zero and even Donkey Kong Country 3 will find our beloved developer back on their feet. But Kameo has a Starfox style “let down” vibe about it. Perfect Dark Zero (like the issue with most of RARE’s current games) is too busy enjoying past glories rather than progressing into the future. And DKC3 is almost certainly going to lack that little something missing in the previous 2 titles.
Both Nintendo and RARE have their backs to the walls. No one cares for RARE on the X-box anymore and Nintendo’s beloved fanbase is, one by one, shaking its head and turning away. And if you visit their headquarters at night, you are sure to see the chief executives of both companies staring out the window… wondering what went wrong.
Dringo.
You simply cannot ignore everything this generation has thrown up from Rare. Starfox Adventures, Grabbed by the Gholies, Conker: Live and Reloaded, Donkey Kong Country (GBA), Donkey Kong Country 2 (GBA), Banjo Pilot, Banjo Kazooie: Gruntilda’s revenge, Sabrewulf and (heaven forbid) It’s Mr. Pants. Some are down right awful, others are nothing more than okay and that even applies to the ports of the already established Rare classics. Nine games since RARE was sold to Microsoft. Once upon a time nine releases by RARE could generate enough revenue to cure world hunger. Those nine releases barely broke even.
I am a mega Nintendo fan. A sad obsessed loser who can’t see beyond the mushroom filled world of Nintendo. Yet it is the “other” Nintendo fans that do the crowing over how Microsoft bought a “dead weight”, not me. For I am still a little sad. There were 4 groups who lost out on the sale of RARE. Nintendo, Microsoft, Rare and us. Nintendo because they lost their link to the western world, they lost their link to the casual gamer and they lost their largest ally. Rare because they lost their mentor, they lost the guidance of Miyamoto and his crew and the creative freedom that came with being a Nintendo second party. Microsoft cause they spent $375 million on a company that hasn’t even generated $1 million. And us because we’re rapidly losing sight of what was once Britain’s premier game developer.
So what happened? The wholesale changes of staff? Perhaps, but then this is RARE and this has been going on for years. The team famous for developing the legendary Killer Instinct and Donkey Kong Country games from the SNES were not the same team that made Goldeneye, Blast Corps, Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini and Conker on the N64. RARE expanded, lost members, gained new ones and got bigger and bigger. And every game they released was (mostly) a new classic to add to their list (Killer Instinct Gold and Mickey’s Speedway USA aside). You see RARE demand a high standard of game development. If this game development didn’t reach their high standard then they would happily take the game away for a few years and change it (Conker’s Bad Fur Day is a prime example). And more specifically Nintendo were happy to let them do it. After all they pretty much did the same.
So you cannot blame the new staff. After all RARE’s high standards are still there. Granted the Microsoft sale shake up may have damaged a few things but nothing on the level of damage that has been done. You see RARE WARE were nothing without their big Japanese friend.
They suited each other perfectly. RARE were a niche on Nintendo’s console, their beat ‘em ups, first person shooters, third person shooters and clever little titles were something Nintendo never created themselves. Add the intensely high production values Nintendo always offered and massive development periods together and you got a company that were the top of their field. Their other games, the westernised platformers and cartoony racers were equally fantastic because their parent company were the masters of both genres. Of course Diddy Kong Racing ruled, it was published by the makers of Mario Kart!
RARE without Nintendo are nothing. The biggest 3 sellers of the last 3 years have been DKC, DKC 2 (both on GBA) and Starfox Adventures. They are also the only 3 RARE developed titles published by Nintendo. But equally Nintendo without RARE are also lacking.
Football fans may be able to understand it in relation to the Steven Gerrard saga. If Gerrard (RARE) went to Chelsea (Microsoft) he would just be another member of the dream team and would shine less than he would at Liverpool (Nintendo). At Liverpool he is the fan favourite and centre of the team. RARE were the best of the Nintendo second party bunch. Camelot, Hal and even Retro had nothing on the mighty English development studio. Nintendo without RARE is like Liverpool with Gerrard. Still a quality team but lacking their star man.
Nintendo and RARE were always a match made in heaven, one without the other just is not right. Look at Nintendo now! They’re relying on exclusive third party support from Capcom, Namco (especially), Square-Enix and their second party Retro. Some are great but none of them match RARE for their homely touches. Donkey Konga, F Zero GX, Crystal Chronicles and Starfox Assault are solid efforts at games; they just lack the soul RARE titles always used to posses.
I look at RARE this Christmas and I hope. I Hope Kameo: Elements of Power, Perfect Dark Zero and even Donkey Kong Country 3 will find our beloved developer back on their feet. But Kameo has a Starfox style “let down” vibe about it. Perfect Dark Zero (like the issue with most of RARE’s current games) is too busy enjoying past glories rather than progressing into the future. And DKC3 is almost certainly going to lack that little something missing in the previous 2 titles.
Both Nintendo and RARE have their backs to the walls. No one cares for RARE on the X-box anymore and Nintendo’s beloved fanbase is, one by one, shaking its head and turning away. And if you visit their headquarters at night, you are sure to see the chief executives of both companies staring out the window… wondering what went wrong.
Dringo.
Page:
Hedfix wrote:
> "Sorry the game's full of British humour but NOE say British
> people won't be able to play it."
I dont agree with their decision at all, I for one was releived to hear THQ were going to publish it!
My point was that Nintendo did not shun CBFD - only NOE! And NOE as we all know are a small part of the Nintendo worldwide empire!
> "Sorry the game's full of British humour but NOE say British
> people won't be able to play it."
I dont agree with their decision at all, I for one was releived to hear THQ were going to publish it!
My point was that Nintendo did not shun CBFD - only NOE! And NOE as we all know are a small part of the Nintendo worldwide empire!
Perfect Dark Zero will pretty much answer everything.
They originally said it was a bonus and that it wouldn't be updated at all. They then decided to update the single players graphics... it isn't an add on it's half the game. As great as the live mode is it is not worth a full price game! It has taken them 3 years for christs sake they could have actually improved the game and made it up to date.
I don't have time to play 60 hour epics. No. I never did. Only Zelda and the Mario RPG series ever gets that much time spent on them.
But I am more than willing to give a game a go... My argument previously was to do with me not having the time to finish a game that lasts over 30 hours it had nothing to do with my lack of willingless to give a game a shot.
I'm a bit sad about Live and Reloaded. Then again it isn't the proper sequel and I await Conker's Other Bad Day with much anticipation.
I don't have time to play 60 hour epics. No. I never did. Only Zelda and the Mario RPG series ever gets that much time spent on them.
But I am more than willing to give a game a go... My argument previously was to do with me not having the time to finish a game that lasts over 30 hours it had nothing to do with my lack of willingless to give a game a shot.
I'm a bit sad about Live and Reloaded. Then again it isn't the proper sequel and I await Conker's Other Bad Day with much anticipation.
Surely it's the fact that most of the good members of Rare left the company, rather than the changeover itself? If whoever left for Free Radical (who are 'the new Rare' in my opinion, or going that way anyway) weren't with Rare in their N64 days, do you really think they would have done so well?
Dringo wrote:
> Hedfix RARE didn't want to leave from Nintendo at all. There was an
> article in Edge magazine about it. RARE were forced out by Nintendo.
> The stamper brothers wanted to renew the deal and Nintendo didn't.
> They wanted to encourage shorter/sweeter games and they wanted to
> work closer with third parties instead.
Never seen it. If so then I have a much lower opinion of Nintendo then I did at thestart of this thread. That's an extreme way to shoot yourself in the foot, no doubt Rare was costing Nintendo a lot of money to run and Rare were looking to expand rather than simplify but you don't just cut off so much innovation and originality in a stupid stroke like that.
> Don't give me rubbish about RARE no careing for the handheld market.
> Perfect Dark on the GBC was great as was their DKC port. I also
> remember a fantastic killer instinct game on it and an enjoyable
> mickey mouse game.
Oh I'm sure there's loads of adequate games out there, let's face it Rare could knock out many handheld titles with ease because they are simpler and easier to create than console games. I expect Rare are more focused on the console games at the moment seeing as a) the outcome of those games pretty much decides Rare's future and b) Microsoft bought them for some killer apps to support their console.
>
> Don't give me this rubbish Hedfix. And don't accuse me of not giving
> games time.
Ah you've said it yourself. "I don't have time to play long games" "I only have so much time so I play the shorter ones" etc etc.
>Rubbish!!! I always give games time and a lot of it.
Yeah when you can FIND the time and you already said you play the shorter ones like SSBM because you don't have the time. Well mabye you do now but you didn't then.
I
> suffered 5 hours of doshin the giant before deciding it wasn't gonna
> be any good.
Great, woop die doo!
>
> Conker: Live and Reloaded is a let down. The reason is that the
> single player is as outdated as the original.
Damn now who could have seen THAT coming? Perhaps the fact that rare said the single player was a bonus might've given the more intelligent gamers out there a rather large clue.
Accuse me of lacking
> forsight but GameTM gave it 6/10, Edge gave it 5/10 and the likes of
> IGN and Gamespot found the game let them down.
Snobby mags and an IGN guy who still weeps over the original? No sorry I've actually played the game for myself, it's not boring (it could do with custom soundtracks mind you) there's plenty to do and plenty of varying objectives.
I like the way you left out the 7/8 out of ten scores given to the game from some of the sources you used - didn't back up your argument? Shame.
For those of us who knew what was coming and looked past the hype we have a great game. For those who swallowed all the hype there's disappointment. I thought you were wiser than that.
I am the biggest
> conker fan you'll find.
Not anymore I'd wager.
The live game is getting better (i've
> overcome the complexity)
Ah yes 'complexity'. That's what makes it good, otherwise it'd just be Mechassault with furry animals and it'd be a complete waste of time.
but it is still not Halo and the single
> player game only damages the memory of my favourite game ever.
Boo hoo. Those of us who read 'Original Single player is a bonus' knew what was coming. I haven't played the single player, I jumped straight online (the menu even points you straight at xbox live as soon as the game starts).
> Hedfix RARE didn't want to leave from Nintendo at all. There was an
> article in Edge magazine about it. RARE were forced out by Nintendo.
> The stamper brothers wanted to renew the deal and Nintendo didn't.
> They wanted to encourage shorter/sweeter games and they wanted to
> work closer with third parties instead.
Never seen it. If so then I have a much lower opinion of Nintendo then I did at thestart of this thread. That's an extreme way to shoot yourself in the foot, no doubt Rare was costing Nintendo a lot of money to run and Rare were looking to expand rather than simplify but you don't just cut off so much innovation and originality in a stupid stroke like that.
> Don't give me rubbish about RARE no careing for the handheld market.
> Perfect Dark on the GBC was great as was their DKC port. I also
> remember a fantastic killer instinct game on it and an enjoyable
> mickey mouse game.
Oh I'm sure there's loads of adequate games out there, let's face it Rare could knock out many handheld titles with ease because they are simpler and easier to create than console games. I expect Rare are more focused on the console games at the moment seeing as a) the outcome of those games pretty much decides Rare's future and b) Microsoft bought them for some killer apps to support their console.
>
> Don't give me this rubbish Hedfix. And don't accuse me of not giving
> games time.
Ah you've said it yourself. "I don't have time to play long games" "I only have so much time so I play the shorter ones" etc etc.
>Rubbish!!! I always give games time and a lot of it.
Yeah when you can FIND the time and you already said you play the shorter ones like SSBM because you don't have the time. Well mabye you do now but you didn't then.
I
> suffered 5 hours of doshin the giant before deciding it wasn't gonna
> be any good.
Great, woop die doo!
>
> Conker: Live and Reloaded is a let down. The reason is that the
> single player is as outdated as the original.
Damn now who could have seen THAT coming? Perhaps the fact that rare said the single player was a bonus might've given the more intelligent gamers out there a rather large clue.
Accuse me of lacking
> forsight but GameTM gave it 6/10, Edge gave it 5/10 and the likes of
> IGN and Gamespot found the game let them down.
Snobby mags and an IGN guy who still weeps over the original? No sorry I've actually played the game for myself, it's not boring (it could do with custom soundtracks mind you) there's plenty to do and plenty of varying objectives.
I like the way you left out the 7/8 out of ten scores given to the game from some of the sources you used - didn't back up your argument? Shame.
For those of us who knew what was coming and looked past the hype we have a great game. For those who swallowed all the hype there's disappointment. I thought you were wiser than that.
I am the biggest
> conker fan you'll find.
Not anymore I'd wager.
The live game is getting better (i've
> overcome the complexity)
Ah yes 'complexity'. That's what makes it good, otherwise it'd just be Mechassault with furry animals and it'd be a complete waste of time.
but it is still not Halo and the single
> player game only damages the memory of my favourite game ever.
Boo hoo. Those of us who read 'Original Single player is a bonus' knew what was coming. I haven't played the single player, I jumped straight online (the menu even points you straight at xbox live as soon as the game starts).
Hedfix RARE didn't want to leave from Nintendo at all. There was an article in Edge magazine about it. RARE were forced out by Nintendo. The stamper brothers wanted to renew the deal and Nintendo didn't. They wanted to encourage shorter/sweeter games and they wanted to work closer with third parties instead.
Don't give me rubbish about RARE no careing for the handheld market. Perfect Dark on the GBC was great as was their DKC port. I also remember a fantastic killer instinct game on it and an enjoyable mickey mouse game.
Don't give me this rubbish Hedfix. And don't accuse me of not giving games time. Rubbish!!! I always give games time and a lot of it. I suffered 5 hours of doshin the giant before deciding it wasn't gonna be any good.
Conker: Live and Reloaded is a let down. The reason is that the single player is as outdated as the original. Accuse me of lacking forsight but GameTM gave it 6/10, Edge gave it 5/10 and the likes of IGN and Gamespot found the game let them down. I am the biggest conker fan you'll find. The live game is getting better (i've overcome the complexity) but it is still not Halo and the single player game only damages the memory of my favourite game ever.
Don't give me rubbish about RARE no careing for the handheld market. Perfect Dark on the GBC was great as was their DKC port. I also remember a fantastic killer instinct game on it and an enjoyable mickey mouse game.
Don't give me this rubbish Hedfix. And don't accuse me of not giving games time. Rubbish!!! I always give games time and a lot of it. I suffered 5 hours of doshin the giant before deciding it wasn't gonna be any good.
Conker: Live and Reloaded is a let down. The reason is that the single player is as outdated as the original. Accuse me of lacking forsight but GameTM gave it 6/10, Edge gave it 5/10 and the likes of IGN and Gamespot found the game let them down. I am the biggest conker fan you'll find. The live game is getting better (i've overcome the complexity) but it is still not Halo and the single player game only damages the memory of my favourite game ever.
N64 Fan wrote:
>
> That was only NOE's decision, not Nintendo as a whole. NOA published
> Conker in the US. And the official line was that it needed too much
> language translation for it to be financially worthwhile in Europe!
But you don't pee on your best european developer by not releasing their game on their home turf. It's a big insult.
"Sorry the game's full of British humour but NOE say British people won't be able to play it."
>
> That was only NOE's decision, not Nintendo as a whole. NOA published
> Conker in the US. And the official line was that it needed too much
> language translation for it to be financially worthwhile in Europe!
But you don't pee on your best european developer by not releasing their game on their home turf. It's a big insult.
"Sorry the game's full of British humour but NOE say British people won't be able to play it."
Hedfix wrote:
> This is why CBFD was published by THQ in Europe, Nintendo didn't want
> to bother publishng Rsre's final N64 games there in Rare's home
> territory! If that isn't a slap in the face to a company Nintendo was
> supposed to be partners with then I don't know what is!
That was only NOE's decision, not Nintendo as a whole. NOA published Conker in the US. And the official line was that it needed too much language translation for it to be financially worthwhile in Europe!
> This is why CBFD was published by THQ in Europe, Nintendo didn't want
> to bother publishng Rsre's final N64 games there in Rare's home
> territory! If that isn't a slap in the face to a company Nintendo was
> supposed to be partners with then I don't know what is!
That was only NOE's decision, not Nintendo as a whole. NOA published Conker in the US. And the official line was that it needed too much language translation for it to be financially worthwhile in Europe!
Rare are like a Western Nintendo and they are better at making westernised 'killer apps' than Nintendo are. Nintendo leave that sort of thing to others mainly or when they do decide to do something it's in a small way (Eternal Darkness) and it's more of a token gesture than a proper commitment.
This is not a criticism of Nintendo so far, the criticism comes in the fact that they let Rare get away and didn't create an environment where Rare thought they could do their best work (I'm generalising when I imply 'all of Rare' but you know what I mean, I mean the commanding majority of Rare).
Personally I bought my N64 for Goldeneye NOT Mario 64. When PD was coming to the Cube I bought a Cube a few months after it was released, when MS bought Rare I bought an Xbox soon after.
Goldeneye and Perfect Dark have been good enough to inspire that kind of loyalty in me. I go where the next Perfect Dark game will be, because yes it should be THAT DAMN GOOD!
At the end of the day it's Nintendo's inability to change fast enough that lost them Rare. Thankfully Nintendo make good games themselves. Although, if given a choice, between Mario, Zelda and Perfect Dark I'll take Perfect Dark every time.
This is not a criticism of Nintendo so far, the criticism comes in the fact that they let Rare get away and didn't create an environment where Rare thought they could do their best work (I'm generalising when I imply 'all of Rare' but you know what I mean, I mean the commanding majority of Rare).
Personally I bought my N64 for Goldeneye NOT Mario 64. When PD was coming to the Cube I bought a Cube a few months after it was released, when MS bought Rare I bought an Xbox soon after.
Goldeneye and Perfect Dark have been good enough to inspire that kind of loyalty in me. I go where the next Perfect Dark game will be, because yes it should be THAT DAMN GOOD!
At the end of the day it's Nintendo's inability to change fast enough that lost them Rare. Thankfully Nintendo make good games themselves. Although, if given a choice, between Mario, Zelda and Perfect Dark I'll take Perfect Dark every time.
I think Conker's THQ publication was more down the game's South Park-esque content.
I'm not sure about this whole "Rare staff wanting to leave", infact a good proportion left once they found MS now owned them. But I think that artistic differences were a key. Rare were pushing for more complex, develloped titles while Nintendo wanted small short and sweet titles.
Nintendo ought to have recognised that Rare would plug a gap they were leaving rather than expect them to follow their suit.
Oh well. C'est la vie. :-)
I'm not sure about this whole "Rare staff wanting to leave", infact a good proportion left once they found MS now owned them. But I think that artistic differences were a key. Rare were pushing for more complex, develloped titles while Nintendo wanted small short and sweet titles.
Nintendo ought to have recognised that Rare would plug a gap they were leaving rather than expect them to follow their suit.
Oh well. C'est la vie. :-)
Page: